IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #33

[Ixchel13]

snipped. just for accuracy sake to those unfamiliar, it was 100ft+ to the first town home and IMO Btown's picture shows a camera that would capture the Morton sidewalk

this is a newer pic, as you can see just up the street to the left a construction barricade. The white camera circled is a newer camera, IMO perhaps it is 100 ft,
I haven't measured the distance, but certainly closer than any 10th and C apt.

I would be interested in when BTown took that photo, as I don't remember it as being in the first round. None of that construction pictured was going on in July of 2011.
also, the east/west alley pictured in the front would be the alley they "emerged" from the alley into, going right into the first part of the gravel lot. A little bit north and you see a path like thing, this is the entrance to a very dark parking lot behind 5N, no cameras.

IOW, I don't remember the circled camera as being there in June of 2011, and I know there were no cameras in the gravel lot or parking lot behind 5N, and this is all on the west side of the crime area.

 

[bx2]

I would be interested in when BTown took that photo, as I don't remember it as being in the first round. None of that construction pictured was going on in July of 2011.

June 14, 2011 8:25:06PM

 

[Ixchel13]

June 14, 2011 8:25:06PM

thanks BX2

I know that cameras were hastily put up after Lauren went missing, this camera is much newer than the others, and I don't remember it being there.

Other people did notice cameras going up soon after the disappearance, guess I'll have to wade through earlier posts, because I remember people commenting on that side of the building acquiring cameras, that's why I always say, "no cameras on the west side at the time of Lauren's disappearance.

Also don't remember the construction barricade on that side of the street to the left, maybe someone has pics from that time we can compare.

I've said this before, the only thing intact from the crime area route is the alley between 10th and C and 10th and V. Only in [ours? LEs?] archived pictures does this crime area remain, weird.

 

[Btown]

June 14, 2011 8:25:06PM

Quite correct sir. Thanks.

There were also 2 cameras on the North side of both 10th & College apts and 10th & College Village apts pointing East toward College Ave on that alley as well.

North side of 10th & College Village apts Camera pointed East toward College Ave.

North side of 10th & College apts Camera pointed East toward College Ave.

 

[Btown]

thanks BX2

I know that cameras were hastily put up after Lauren went missing, this camera is much newer than the others, and I don't remember it being there.

Other people did notice cameras going up soon after the disappearance

The 10th & College Village apartment camera in the pic was in place. I seem to recall new cameras appearing in the 10th & C Village garage area off the alley, but have not been able to verify that.

5 North, (which I reported on this site), put up cameras shortly afterward.

 

[Btown]

thanks BX2


Also don't remember the construction barricade on that side of the street to the left,

I'm sorry, construction barricades where? I may have pics.

 

[Ros]

My fellow web sleuths, I managed to get in contact with Shawn Cohen last night on the phone. The first question I asked him was "Did ZC live in Tenth & College or Tenth & College Village?" He seemed unfamiliar with the distinction in names. (In his defense, he didn't have his notes in front of him, and he's busy working on another story now.) But he said, facing "up hill" (north), it was the one "to the left". So, based on that, you are absolutely right, Ixchel13, "apartment at 10th & College", or whatever he said on the video was (slightly) misleading: Mr. Cohen was, in fact, referring to Tenth & College Village, according to him, on the phone with me last night.

This explains the PIs seeming to have footage of CR carrying Lauren away from ZC's door. Shawn Cohen wasn't sure, but he said he believed that said description was based on video, not a witness. So, CR and Lauren must have ducked into T&CV, as you suspected, then continued down the alley, getting caught on camera, for the last time, as they left the alley at 2:51. Three minutes still strikes me as quick to even duck in, and still get down the alley, with all the stumbling. But, maybe the 2:48 time is when she *re-entered* the alley, after the failed visit to ZC. That would make the time more believable.

Mr. Cohen didn't, off of the top of his head, have information about which of Lauren's possessions were found in the alley, vs at Smallwood. I brought up Gatto's 3:38 witness. He seemed as if he hadn't ever seriously considered the 3:38 time as being accurate. He said he was never able to interview the 3:38 witness, but that he'd like to. I argued for the theory that Lauren wandered away from 5N at 3:30, and was taken into Tenth & College at 3:38, after being seen by the bar worker.

I expressed suspicion that a group of run-of-the-mill partiers would spontaneously hide a body, or hide it this well. SC, on the other hand, thought it possible that a group might hide a body, due to an overdose, and that such a body might not be found for a long time. It was exciting to talk to someone so close to the actual investigation.

Speaking of Gatto, I can't find an e-mail for Tony Gatto anywhere. Does anyone have an idea how I could get an e-mail to him? I want to ask him about the bar-worker witness.

TG or someone using his name was on this website. You might be able to send him a PM. He also has a Twitter account.

 

[Ixchel13]

The 10th & College Village apartment camera in the pic was in place. I seem to recall new cameras appearing in the 10th & C Village garage area off the alley, but have not been able to verify that.

5 North, (which I reported on this site), put up cameras shortly afterward.

I recall a few of your posts when you had cameras circled and said they were pointing west in that same alley. I went and checked and said they were not pointed west, and you posted that I was wrong. Then, you came back after checking and posted that I was right, no cameras in that alley pointed west.
Someone else pointed out another error in another camera pic, and you also acknowledged that error.



Just recently I posted there was a camera on the north side of Salzmann's office that pointed at the middle stairs at 10th and C, and then Bx2 came on and said it wasn't a camera, then you posted that it was a camera.


so I guess everyone makes mistakes about these confounded cameras.:facepalm:



anyway, the construction barricades, or rather, construction fencing, is at the far left of the picture you posted of the camera on northwest corner of 10th and V.

 

[Ixchel13]

The 10th & College Village apartment camera in the pic was in place. I seem to recall new cameras appearing in the 10th & C Village garage area off the alley, but have not been able to verify that.

5 North, (which I reported on this site), put up cameras shortly afterward.

the garage area cameras make more sense, Thanks and sorry about misunderstandings/

 

[bessie]

WS is undergoing a software upgrade. Within the next week -- possibly the next few days -- you will notice we have a new look. You shouldn't experience navigation problems, but if you do, look for the tab which reads "FORUMS" at the top of the home page. Click that tab to get to the index of the various forums and sub-forums. Then navigate to "Unsolved Featured Cases" --> "Lauren Spierer".

If you normally use a bookmark to enter the thread, your link will still work.

Should you get really lost, send a pm to me or another mod and we'll guide you back.

ENJOY!

:tyou:

ETA: If we run into bumps along the way, Kimster will post updates on her Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/KimsterWS

 

[Ros]

What's the status of the civil suit? I know a trial date has been set for next year. But I don't know whether the Spierers' search for more information is going to be permitted.

 

[Todaysun]

From what I have read, the stay on discovery has not yet been lifted. Some speculate this is a good thing, as perhaps there is movement in the criminal case. One can only hope.

This article is the most recent I have seen-- depositions were to have started last week, but the stay was simply reiterated. Apologies if this was already posted:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/depositions-delayed-in-spierer-civil-case/PARAMS/article/34298

 

[Todaysun]

http://weblive.ibj.com/lawyer/PDFs/2014/june/spierer-order.pdf

Interesting op ed style article on the legalities of the stay. Perhaps someone better versed in legal language can provide better insight - but in the interim I found this quip intriguing:


What is clear is that both of these filings attempt to put before the Court an affidavit of a toxicologist who claims that he needs to review certain discovery materials to render an opinion about Lauren Spierer’s likely blood alcohol level on the morning of June 3, 2011. [Filing No. 94; Filing No. 95.] If the Court finds that these recent filings justify permitting discovery after all, then discovery will necessarily proceed. As Rosenbaum’s objection points out, however, and as noted above, this asserted need for discovery conflicts with Plaintiffs’ representation at the May 28 hearing that no additional discovery is needed to respond to the pending summary judgment motion. [Filing No. 102, at ECF p. 4.]

 

[Ros]

According to this early timeline, she arrived at Kilroy's at 1:48 and left at 2:27.

So we are expected to believe that in less than two hours time she went from being unable to stand or walk unassisted, falling without doing anything to breaker her fall, etc. to being able to walk without stumbling?

I wonder what an expert on alcohol toxicity would have to say about the probability of such a scenario?

Hmm. I wonder if the Spierers and their attorney are thinking along the same line; and that is why they went from not needing any more discovery for the summary judgment to needing just enough to give an expert toxicologist the information he or she needs to make a judgment.

If the toxicologist can view the tapes and examine testimony from those who saw her on her way north, then he/she could state whether or not JR's statement that she could "just walk away" without stumbling at 4:30 a.m. could be true.

 

[akh]

It HAS to be true for the sake of the civil suit (as far as I can see) because the entire civil suit is built around them being responsible for what happened after leaving the apartments. Letting her walk out of the apartment and to her demise as opposed to taking care of her in her intoxicated state.

So it would make more sense that he wants to review materials to say they let an extremely intoxicated "had to be a BAC of .XX..." girl walk into the night. And then speak to how she wouldn't have been able to make proper decisions at that point.

But this all runs counter to a criminal case because the criminal case, assuming they are the guilty party in her disappearance, would likely want to show she couldn't walk away at all.

The entire civil suit seems based on taking 5N's story and hanging them with it, but that story doesn't have them guilty of actually committing a crime (in a criminal sense). But it seems that is all that the parents have to make a case they can push in court.

It's basically, we think they did one thing but it cannot be proven right now, so we'll use their own words against them and just say "If that is the story you want to tell then we'll sue you based on that story and how that story makes you civilly negiligent. And in defending that, maybe you'll tell us something that will be useful in catching you for what we really think happened and then the criminal justice system can take over." Of course their attorneys would never let that happen. If it gets down to it, it will be losing money versus losing freedom and a life behind bars. They'll take the loss of money every time when that is the only two choices left.

Which this all makes for a tough hurdle for the civil case (and the criminal investigations). It doesn't help that in interviews the parents continually let it slip that they don't believe their own lawsuit and are basically using it as a fishing trip. Meanwhile, to see it thru to the end, they end up seemingly 'agreeing' with the story that 5N has told all along and that is she walked away.

So the toxicologist will have to walk a fine line in what he says... as far as I can tell anyway.

 

[imkeylime]

... The entire civil suit seems based on taking 5N's story and hanging them with it, but that story doesn't have them guilty of actually committing a crime (in a criminal sense). But it seems that is all that the parents have to make a case they can push in court.

It's basically, we think they did one thing but it cannot be proven right now, so we'll use their own words against them and just say "If that is the story you want to tell then we'll sue you based on that story and how that story makes you civilly negiligent....

So the toxicologist will have to walk a fine line in what he says... as far as I can tell anyway.

I wish MB was still part of the civil suit (primarily because, IMO, he should be). But aside from the POI's own stories, I'm really interested in seeing how the various witness accounts play out. Hopefully it will go beyond using the POIs' words against them and toxicology ... perhaps seeing how witness accounts stack up against the POIs' accounts will yield some new info as well?

 

[ontheclock]

I wish MB was still part of the civil suit (primarily because, IMO, he should be). But aside from the POI's own stories, I'm really interested in seeing how the various witness accounts play out. Hopefully it will go beyond using the POIs' words against them and toxicology ... perhaps seeing how witness accounts stack up against the POIs' accounts will yield some new info as well?

Me too.

 

[Ixchel13]

It HAS to be true for the sake of the civil suit (as far as I can see) because the entire civil suit is built around them being responsible for what happened after leaving the apartments. Letting her walk out of the apartment and to her demise as opposed to taking care of her in her intoxicated state.

So it would make more sense that he wants to review materials to say they let an extremely intoxicated "had to be a BAC of .XX..." girl walk into the night. And then speak to how she wouldn't have been able to make proper decisions at that point.

But this all runs counter to a criminal case because the criminal case, assuming they are the guilty party in her disappearance, would likely want to show she couldn't walk away at all.

The entire civil suit seems based on taking 5N's story and hanging them with it, but that story doesn't have them guilty of actually committing a crime (in a criminal sense). But it seems that is all that the parents have to make a case they can push in court.

It's basically, we think they did one thing but it cannot be proven right now, so we'll use their own words against them and just say "If that is the story you want to tell then we'll sue you based on that story and how that story makes you civilly negiligent. And in defending that, maybe you'll tell us something that will be useful in catching you for what we really think happened and then the criminal justice system can take over." Of course their attorneys would never let that happen. If it gets down to it, it will be losing money versus losing freedom and a life behind bars. They'll take the loss of money every time when that is the only two choices left.

Which this all makes for a tough hurdle for the civil case (and the criminal investigations). It doesn't help that in interviews the parents continually let it slip that they don't believe their own lawsuit and are basically using it as a fishing trip. Meanwhile, to see it thru to the end, they end up seemingly 'agreeing' with the story that 5N has told all along and that is she walked away.

So the toxicologist will have to walk a fine line in what he says... as far as I can tell anyway.

one of my theories is that they let her walk away because they knew she was heading into someone they had called and told that Lauren was leaving, IOW,
JR being loyal to someone who may have been looking/lying in wait for her. In that case, establishing that they let her walk out basically helpless into a trap. Even if they didn't see it as a trap, if they did that and it even accidentally resulted in her death, it could be accessory to involuntary manslaughter.

and, I don't for one second believe there were only 2 calls made from JR's. Why would LE waver from the sparse evidence they gave us and tell us about every call made, especially when one of the things they repeat over and over is that not just POIs, but that friends and witnesses stories do not match either. When the people involved read that, maybe they came forward with either more unmatching stories, or maybe even the real facts? If real facts came forward later, very doubtful that LE is going to announce this at all.

 

[Ros]

It HAS to be true for the sake of the civil suit (as far as I can see) because the entire civil suit is built around them being responsible for what happened after leaving the apartments. Letting her walk out of the apartment and to her demise as opposed to taking care of her in her intoxicated state.

So it would make more sense that he wants to review materials to say they let an extremely intoxicated "had to be a BAC of .XX..." girl walk into the night. And then speak to how she wouldn't have been able to make proper decisions at that point.

But this all runs counter to a criminal case because the criminal case, assuming they are the guilty party in her disappearance, would likely want to show she couldn't walk away at all.

The entire civil suit seems based on taking 5N's story and hanging them with it, but that story doesn't have them guilty of actually committing a crime (in a criminal sense). But it seems that is all that the parents have to make a case they can push in court.

It's basically, we think they did one thing but it cannot be proven right now, so we'll use their own words against them and just say "If that is the story you want to tell then we'll sue you based on that story and how that story makes you civilly negligent. And in defending that, maybe you'll tell us something that will be useful in catching you for what we really think happened and then the criminal justice system can take over." Of course their attorneys would never let that happen. If it gets down to it, it will be losing money versus losing freedom and a life behind bars. They'll take the loss of money every time when that is the only two choices left.

Which this all makes for a tough hurdle for the civil case (and the criminal investigations). It doesn't help that in interviews the parents continually let it slip that they don't believe their own lawsuit and are basically using it as a fishing trip. Meanwhile, to see it thru to the end, they end up seemingly 'agreeing' with the story that 5N has told all along and that is she walked away.

So the toxicologist will have to walk a fine line in what he says... as far as I can tell anyway.

As far as I can tell, the toxicologist's testimony could go any of three ways:

1. She would not be able to walk at all - evidence for the criminal case.
2. She would not be able to walk without stumbling, falling, getting lost, making bad decisions, etc. - evidence in favor of the plaintiffs
3. She would be sober enough to be able to safely walk three blocks - evidence for the defendants.

In the Molly Dattilo case, the parents won the civil case, but the defendants never provided any information that would lead to an arrest. The same could happen in this case. In both cases, I think the parents' wanted the truth more than then money, though.

http://madisoncourier.com/print.asp?ArticleID=59795&SectionID=178&SubSectionID=961

 

[akh]

I'm rethinking the strategy for the toxicologist. Not that I think he would lie but being that he's hired by the plaintiffs we can certainly know how he'll skew the information he imparts.

So, that said, he's not going to say she was sober or anywhere near it. That is a given. But he's also not going to say without question she couldn't walk. That would be nearly pointless for the civil case, if not damaging. You're going to put an expert witness on the stand that doesn't even support the narrative that your lawsuit is based upon? No... And LE has their own experts for any work towards a criminal case.

BUT.... I can easily see the expert suggesting or implying that it was lucky she could walk at all with her level of intoxication. Perhaps to the point of planting the seed he doesn't believe it but never really says that. Why would he and the plaintiffs do that? To win sympathy... To create an atmosphere where a verdict might not be technically correct but the plaintiffs win because it's felt that it's all a lie that she walked out in the first place.

So the plaintiffs 'win' in that the verdict technically agrees that 5N let her leave their apartment in a condition that led to her demise (when they had a duty of care). But the reality is the verdict will be based on a belief she never left the apartments alive at all and so the verdict will be brought to make sure they get some level of punishment.

The defense would understand that strategy and how it undermines their own defense strategy since it would be an undercurrent they have to address, but can't tackle head on necessarily (depending on what type of exculpatory evidence they may or may not have of course).

Make sense that that is what the strategy could be?